Regimon Varghese, M. H. Salim and Robert A K v. State of Kerala and Kavitha

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023`** ``` CRIME NO.2907/2019 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 1083/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989,KOTTARAKKARA ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** ``` 1REGIMON VARGHESE AGED 60 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, MARY MANDIRAM, KIZHAKKETHERUVU MURI, MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 508. 2M.H. SALIM AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MYHAMMED HANEEFA, PANANGATTU VEEDU, MANJAPPARA MURI, AYUR, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 601 533. 3ROBERT A K AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KUNJIPPALU, AKKARA HOUSE, PULAMON MURI, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLAM, PIN – 601 506. BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. 2KAVITHA D/O. THANKAMMA, KAVITHA BHAVAN, GANDHI MUKKU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 506. BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN V.JAYA RAGI(K/3390/1999) R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)(K/993/2012) NEERAJ NARAYAN(K/332/2016) AVANEETH S.R.(K/306/2021) BHARATH VIJAYAN U.R.(K/001556/2023) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ## **`THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ## **`18.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## **K.BABU, J.** ------------------------------------ ## **`CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023`** -----------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2023 ## **J U D G M E N T** The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 12.07.2023 in Crl. MP No.88/2023 in SC No.1083/2020 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Kottarakara. The appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 3. They face charges under sections 341, 294(b), 506(1) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2) (v)(a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). The appellants filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, seeking discharge. In the application seeking discharge, the appellants raised as many as twelve grounds. The Court below, after considering the application seeking discharge, passed the following order. “2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the charge sheet and the documents produced ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` by the prosecution. I am of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed an offence. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner/saccused to discharge them is dismissed.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the party respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, as per Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the Court below was required to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted and the submissions of the accused and the prosecution. It is submitted that the impugned order does not contain any reason. 3. Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr. P.C read as follows: ## “ **Section 227: Discharge:-** If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. ## **Section 228. Framing of charge:-** (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 4. The above quoted provisions postulate the exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the record of the case and the documents submitted and the submissions made by both sides. In the present case, the appellants have raised a series of grounds in support of the contention that they are entitled to discharge. The Court below has not recorded any reasons while rejecting the contentions raised. Unreasoned conclusions may sometimes be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. An Order or a Judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Apex Court and this Court have emphasized that the judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 5. Firstly, it is calculated to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. They very search for reasons will put the authority on alert and minimise the chances of arbitrariness in the ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Secondly, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Thirdly, it should be remembered that a judgment or order which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the higher courts. The court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 6. In **English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]** the Court of Appeal held that, a judicial decision which affected the ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` substantive rights of the parties should be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g., interlocutory case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a judge was not obliged to deal with every argument or identify or explain every factor which weighed with him, the issues the resolution of which were vital to his conclusion should be identifed and the manner in which he resolved them briefy but clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to his decision. 7. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 8. In **Shukla and Brothers** (supra) the Apex Court held further that, a litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Nonrecording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. 9. In view of the principles discussed, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below. The trial Court is directed to consider Annexure III application afresh, in accordance with law. The Court below is directed to dispose of Annexure III application within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Criminal Appeal is allowed as above. **Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE** rpr ``` CRL.A NO. 1223 OF 2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1223/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 2907/2019 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure-IIA TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2907/2019 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. ``` ``` Annexure-IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE CRL MP NO. 88/2023 IN SC NO. 1083/2020 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA ```